Cited by

“Ordinarily, if an officer observes 4 a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.”

(“Ordinarily, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.”).

(“Ordinarily, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.”).

(“Ordinarily, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.”).

“Ordinarily, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.” d 575, 578 (Minn. 1997) .

(“Ordinarily, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.”).

(“Ordinarily, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.”).

(“Ordinarily, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic 6 law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.”).

“Ordinarily, if an officer observes a violation of a 8 traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.”

(“Ordinarily, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.”).

“Ordinarily, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.”

-96 (Minn. App. 2003) (holding seizure occurred when an officer activated their squad car’s flashing lights to initiate a stop); (“Ordinarily, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.”).

“Ordinarily, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.”

“[I]f an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.”

A traffic stop “‘must be justified by some objective manifestation that the person stopped is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity.’” d 575, 578 (Minn. 1997) (quoting United States v. Cortez , 449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981)).

11 (2002), which requires a motorist to move ‘a lane away’ from an emergency vehicle on the side of the road does not require a motorist to provide a lane between the passing vehicle and the emergency vehicle.”); 4 (“A law enforcement officer’s belief a motorcycle headlight configuration to be illegal is not an objective legal basis for a traffic stop where the headlight configuration clearly conformed to Minnesota law.”).

7 testified that she stopped the vehicle after she “observed [Triebwasser] driving on and over the fog lines,” “weaving,” and turning “without signaling.” “Ordinarily, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.” d 575, 578 (Minn. 1997) ; (stating erratic driving and failure to observe traffic laws can be indicia of intoxication).

d 575, 578 (Minn. 1997); (“To lawfully stop a person.

“Ordinarily, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.”

(noting that “very few drivers can traverse any appreciable distance without violating some traffic regulation” (quotation omitted)).

“[I]f an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.” (citing Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 (1996)) (concluding that a traffic stop was reasonable because police stopped appellant’s vehicle after observing a traffic violation), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

Further, the district court credited the officer’s statement that he had never seen a “roll- 2 The supreme court has recognized that, “if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.”